I've done quite a bit of searching, but apparently not enough to find the correct answer. Some pictures of restored 67's have shock tower caps with the welded washers and some do not.
I guess the simple question: does a 67 GT500 have the regular caps or the welded washer type?
Thanks!
Mike
It should have the welded double thick washers.
Some think that cars without them were because there was a parts shortage on the assembly line but it is just as likely, more so maybe, that some PO serviced the car with the wrong ones?
Quote from: shelbydoug on June 15, 2020, 10:01:56 AM
It should have the welded double thick washers.
Some think that cars without them were because there was a parts shortage on the assembly line but it is just as likely, more so maybe, that some PO serviced the car with the wrong ones?
I would say it like this. The cars were meant to have the reinforced heavy duty upper shock brackets (Ford called beehives in paperwork) . It was part of the export package. There were very short periods of times on the assemblyline when for whatever reason a mistake was made and some cars did not receive them. When they are found missing on a car it is more likely a past owner issue then a assemblyline mistake. Saying the same thing only different.. ;D
Guys,
Thanks for the clarification and additional info!
Mike
Does D. Mathews have the info on which cars didn't have them?
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 10:16:02 AM
Quote from: shelbydoug on June 15, 2020, 10:01:56 AM
It should have the welded double thick washers.
Some think that cars without them were because there was a parts shortage on the assembly line but it is just as likely, more so maybe, that some PO serviced the car with the wrong ones?
I would say it like this. The cars were meant to have the reinforced heavy duty upper shock brackets (Ford called beehives in paperwork) . It was part of the export package. There were very short periods of times on the assemblyline when for whatever reason a mistake was made and some cars did not receive them. When they are found missing on a car it is more likely a past owner issue then a assemblyline mistake. Saying the same thing only different.. ;D
"the same thing, only different" ? :o
I don't know "Special Ed" but I suspect this sounds suspiciously like him? 8)
I caught my wife telling someone the other day that I'm "freakin' nutz!"
I can't imagine why she might have said that? ???
Quote from: Bossbill on June 15, 2020, 03:23:30 PM
Does D. Mathews have the info on which cars didn't have them?
We know it happened at the factory sometimes . 66 production has a few instances .67 production has more. 68-70 didn't seem to have any concrete problems that can be identified. Lack of supply is the easiest explanation. Dave has owner info on the subject I believe.He has correlated based on that unless some DSO info has come to light.
I have never seen them missing on a unmolested boss 429 yet and some have a color code on them and that's just the way it is!!
I've seen quite a few original untouched '67 Shelby 350 and 500 cars without the reinforced caps. It seems all the restored cars end up with the reinforced shock tower caps even if the car didn't originally have them because the restorer feels they should be on the car.
Quote from: George Schalk on June 15, 2020, 08:30:17 PM
I've seen quite a few original untouched '67 Shelby 350 and 500 cars without the reinforced caps. It seems all the restored cars end up with the reinforced shock tower caps even if the car didn't originally have them because the restorer feels they should be on the car.
As Bob suggests, they were ALL MEANT to get them. I interpret not having them as a mistake. Why restore a mistake? Is there historical significance to that?
Quote from: shelbydoug on June 15, 2020, 09:32:41 PM
........ Why restore a mistake? Is there historical significance to that?
Could be historical significant to some owners and restorers. Sometimes these details can represent a trend - let us say for discussion there were 100 cars all built consecutively. Some may still see it as a mistake while others a choice (in this case) by Ford and by changing the restoration takes on a more vanilla or cookie cutter final look that than represent how the car was truthfully built.
In this example it may have not been a "mistake" but a need.
Just discussing both sides of the coin and not meant as an argument :)
Quote from: shelbydoug on June 15, 2020, 09:32:41 PM
Quote from: George Schalk on June 15, 2020, 08:30:17 PM
I've seen quite a few original untouched '67 Shelby 350 and 500 cars without the reinforced caps. It seems all the restored cars end up with the reinforced shock tower caps even if the car didn't originally have them because the restorer feels they should be on the car.
As Bob suggests, they were ALL MEANT to get them. I interpret not having them as a mistake. Why restore a mistake? Is there historical significance to that?
Well, the 67 cars were all supposed to have functional lower brake scoops and lights in the upper scoops, but as we all know, that isn't the case. I get that some want their cars "the way it was intended to be", but then there are some that do not want to change the original characteristics of a car and prefer to restore it to the exact way it rolled out of SA.
Quote from: George Schalk on June 15, 2020, 10:24:31 PM
Quote from: shelbydoug on June 15, 2020, 09:32:41 PM
Quote from: George Schalk on June 15, 2020, 08:30:17 PM
I've seen quite a few original untouched '67 Shelby 350 and 500 cars without the reinforced caps. It seems all the restored cars end up with the reinforced shock tower caps even if the car didn't originally have them because the restorer feels they should be on the car.
As Bob suggests, they were ALL MEANT to get them. I interpret not having them as a mistake. Why restore a mistake? Is there historical significance to that?
Well, the 67 cars were all supposed to have functional lower brake scoops and lights in the upper scoops, but as we all know, that isn't the case. I get that some want their cars "the way it was intended to be", but then there are some that do not want to change the original characteristics of a car and prefer to restore it to the exact way it rolled out of SA.
You are misinformed. The functional brake scoop change and lights in the upper scoop lights was a on purpose evolution change made by the powers to be at SA. The reinforced upper shock bracket sometimes not getting added was a mistake /supply problem and not a conscious change by SA otherwise it would have been carried out consistently over the rest of production like the lower scoop and scoop light that you used as examples. The times that the assemblyline didn't use the reinforced upper shock brackets was few and far between only effecting a dozen or two number of cars at a time randomly during production and not hundreds or thousands of cars like your examples.
If it was a cool or interesting mistake I could see keeping the inferior part. The use of the regular upper shock bracket makes a 67 Shelby less then another 67 Shelby that has the correct stronger part like the car was designed to have IMO.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 10:49:05 PM
If it was a cool or interesting mistake I could see keeping the inferior part. The use of the regular upper shock bracket makes a 67 Shelby less then another 67 Shelby that has the correct stronger part like the car was designed to have IMO.
My point was, that there were a number of '67 cars built without the reinforced shock mounts, so a car can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts. I realize production changes at SA were made to save cost at times, vendor changes, and in some cases state laws dictated changes.
Quote from: George Schalk on June 15, 2020, 11:03:31 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 10:49:05 PM
If it was a cool or interesting mistake I could see keeping the inferior part. The use of the regular upper shock bracket makes a 67 Shelby less then another 67 Shelby that has the correct stronger part like the car was designed to have IMO.
My point was, that there were a number of '67 cars built without the reinforced shock mounts, so a car can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts. I realize production changes at SA were made to save cost at times, vendor changes, and in some cases state laws dictated changes.
I agree that a relative few 67 Shelby's were built without the reinforced upper shock mount. It is of course up to the owner or restorer to build the car any way they see fit. FYI In concours venues the burden of proof is on the entrant to prove a out of the ordinary occurrence with reasonable evidence (not past owner here say). In this case that the specific car entered is one of those few that were built without the reinforced upper shock mounts for there not to be a deduction. Just the fact that some Shelby in 67 production had the mistake doesn't give a pass to every other 67 Shelby.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 11:37:10 PM
Quote from: George Schalk on June 15, 2020, 11:03:31 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 10:49:05 PM
If it was a cool or interesting mistake I could see keeping the inferior part. The use of the regular upper shock bracket makes a 67 Shelby less then another 67 Shelby that has the correct stronger part like the car was designed to have IMO.
My point was, that there were a number of '67 cars built without the reinforced shock mounts, so a car can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts. I realize production changes at SA were made to save cost at times, vendor changes, and in some cases state laws dictated changes.
I agree that a relative few 67 Shelby's were built without the reinforced upper shock mount. It is of course up to the owner or restorer to build the car any way they see fit. FYI In concours venues the burden of proof is on the entrant to prove a out of the ordinary occurrence with reasonable evidence (not past owner here say). In this case that the specific car entered is one of those few that were built without the reinforced upper shock mounts for there not to be a deduction. Just the fact that some Shelby in 67 production had the mistake doesn't give a pass to every other 67 Shelby.
Does anyone have SA paperwork or any other statistics to prove how many '67 Shelby's were produced with and without the reinforced upper shock mounts? Without any documented proof, no one really knows for sure what cars should have. How can a claim be discredited if there is no firm proof from either side. At this point it's all personal opinion. The best thing to do is take a poll on original cars with or without reinforced shock mounts.
Quote from: George Schalk on June 16, 2020, 12:01:23 AM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 11:37:10 PM
Quote from: George Schalk on June 15, 2020, 11:03:31 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 10:49:05 PM
If it was a cool or interesting mistake I could see keeping the inferior part. The use of the regular upper shock bracket makes a 67 Shelby less then another 67 Shelby that has the correct stronger part like the car was designed to have IMO.
My point was, that there were a number of '67 cars built without the reinforced shock mounts, so a car can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts. I realize production changes at SA were made to save cost at times, vendor changes, and in some cases state laws dictated changes.
I agree that a relative few 67 Shelby's were built without the reinforced upper shock mount. It is of course up to the owner or restorer to build the car any way they see fit. FYI In concours venues the burden of proof is on the entrant to prove a out of the ordinary occurrence with reasonable evidence (not past owner here say). In this case that the specific car entered is one of those few that were built without the reinforced upper shock mounts for there not to be a deduction. Just the fact that some Shelby in 67 production had the mistake doesn't give a pass to every other 67 Shelby.
Does anyone have SA paperwork or any other statistics to prove how many '67 Shelby's were produced with and without the reinforced upper shock mounts? Without any documented proof, no one really knows for sure what cars should have. How can a claim be discredited if there is no firm proof from either side. At this point it's all personal opinion.
You are misinformed again. For example the SAAC registrar has taken the time to record various reported cars VIN's and correlate patterns for the mistake cars. For instance if a car falls in between a series of car with the same reported issue then it would be reasonable to assume that car in question would be the same. That is just one example of reasonable proof. There are various others.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 16, 2020, 12:20:35 AM
Quote from: George Schalk on June 16, 2020, 12:01:23 AM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 11:37:10 PM
Quote from: George Schalk on June 15, 2020, 11:03:31 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 10:49:05 PM
If it was a cool or interesting mistake I could see keeping the inferior part. The use of the regular upper shock bracket makes a 67 Shelby less then another 67 Shelby that has the correct stronger part like the car was designed to have IMO.
My point was, that there were a number of '67 cars built without the reinforced shock mounts, so a car can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts. I realize production changes at SA were made to save cost at times, vendor changes, and in some cases state laws dictated changes.
I agree that a relative few 67 Shelby's were built without the reinforced upper shock mount. It is of course up to the owner or restorer to build the car any way they see fit. FYI In concours venues the burden of proof is on the entrant to prove a out of the ordinary occurrence with reasonable evidence (not past owner here say). In this case that the specific car entered is one of those few that were built without the reinforced upper shock mounts for there not to be a deduction. Just the fact that some Shelby in 67 production had the mistake doesn't give a pass to every other 67 Shelby.
Does anyone have SA paperwork or any other statistics to prove how many '67 Shelby's were produced with and without the reinforced upper shock mounts? Without any documented proof, no one really knows for sure what cars should have. How can a claim be discredited if there is no firm proof from either side. At this point it's all personal opinion.
You are misinformed again. For example the SAAC registrar has taken the time to record various reported cars VIN's and correlate patterns for the mistake cars. For instance if a car falls in between a series of car with the same reported issue then it would be reasonable to assume that car in question would be the same. That is just one example of reasonable proof. There are various others.
Is the information that has been complied able to be shared? I would be very interested to see this and I'm sure others would like to see it as well. In my collection, I have 2 unrestored '67s that do not have the reinforced mounts. I have pictures of other unrestored cars without the reinforced mounts also.
Quote from: George Schalk on June 16, 2020, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 16, 2020, 12:20:35 AM
Quote from: George Schalk on June 16, 2020, 12:01:23 AM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 11:37:10 PM
Quote from: George Schalk on June 15, 2020, 11:03:31 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 10:49:05 PM
If it was a cool or interesting mistake I could see keeping the inferior part. The use of the regular upper shock bracket makes a 67 Shelby less then another 67 Shelby that has the correct stronger part like the car was designed to have IMO.
My point was, that there were a number of '67 cars built without the reinforced shock mounts, so a car can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts. I realize production changes at SA were made to save cost at times, vendor changes, and in some cases state laws dictated changes.
I agree that a relative few 67 Shelby's were built without the reinforced upper shock mount. It is of course up to the owner or restorer to build the car any way they see fit. FYI In concours venues the burden of proof is on the entrant to prove a out of the ordinary occurrence with reasonable evidence (not past owner here say). In this case that the specific car entered is one of those few that were built without the reinforced upper shock mounts for there not to be a deduction. Just the fact that some Shelby in 67 production had the mistake doesn't give a pass to every other 67 Shelby.
Does anyone have SA paperwork or any other statistics to prove how many '67 Shelby's were produced with and without the reinforced upper shock mounts? Without any documented proof, no one really knows for sure what cars should have. How can a claim be discredited if there is no firm proof from either side. At this point it's all personal opinion.
You are misinformed again. For example the SAAC registrar has taken the time to record various reported cars VIN's and correlate patterns for the mistake cars. For instance if a car falls in between a series of car with the same reported issue then it would be reasonable to assume that car in question would be the same. That is just one example of reasonable proof. There are various others.
Is the information that has been complied able to be shared? I would be very interested to see this and I'm sure others would like to see it as well. In my collection, I have 2 unrestored '67s that do not have the reinforced mounts. I have pictures of other unrestored cars without the reinforced mounts also.
No wonder you were so enthusiastic about the subject since you had skin in the game so to speak. You know Dave Mathews is the SAAC registrar and so you should be asking him instead of me. Hopefully you find that your cars falls in with others built the same time that have the same mistake so as to reinforce your perception that it came that way.
Skin in the game? I was only enthusiastic about the subject because you tried to discredit what I have to say when you have no proof or documentation yourself on the subject. The non-reinforced caps are an observation I've made over the years. I respect that you are a wealth of information on these cars, but if you aren't 100% sure on a subject, don't try to discredit what others have to say.
My car being an early car is lacking the reinforced bee hives. They were replaced because of the damage done to car. I don't remember them having the washers. I actually could have overlooked them.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 16, 2020, 02:01:12 AM
Quote from: George Schalk on June 16, 2020, 01:10:45 AM
Skin in the game? I was only enthusiastic about the subject because you tried to discredit what I have to say when you have no proof or documentation yourself on the subject. The non-reinforced caps are an observation I've made over the years. I respect that you are a wealth of information on these cars, but if you aren't 100% sure on a subject, don't try to discredit what others have to say.
George,my 47 years of school of hard knocks studying and owning Shelby's which includes 100's of original car observations , 27 years of concours Shelby judging at the highest level for as many as 3 different organizations give weight to my testament of proof and documentation. What statement did I discredit you on that was not true? Was it the poor example of the SA purposely discontinuing the functional lower brake scoops and upper scoop light comparison to the different time random mistake of missing correct parts done by Ford on the SJ assemblyline ? Was it your position that any 67 Shelby "can be restored with or without the reinforced upper shock mounts" and I assume without further clarification on your part be equally correct?. Or was it that you were not aware of other ways to give reasonable provenience to out of the ordinary claims. As far as those statements are concerned I am 100% sure of my point of view. If you feel slighted/discredited because my points did not align with yours , GET OVER IT AND TAKE A PILL.
Wow!! I just lost ALL respect for you. You are a legend in your own mind.
#2325 no washers welded on shock tower caps. Know many other owners that do not have them also.
There are a few other details multiple owners share that don't follow the 'norm'.
I will add that history should be fact of what really happened, not what should have happened.
Jon
It's a good thing that pistol dueling was outlawed but then that is just an opinion with no data? Probably there is someone here that would defend it? :o
I think that you guys would shoot at each other. Oh wait, maybe you did already and both missed?
Awesome thread
My feeling has always been the benefit of the doubt should go to the concours entrant. Unfortunately the concours judging has become very rigid and this combined with the lack of any kind of guidance, has alienated many from participation.
The enlightened position would be more inclusive with some clear guidelines.
If you want to go nuts, that would be for Division 1.
Well stated Coralsnake.
The issue as I see it is: 1) back when, we all thought somebody changed them to the washers missing type, blowing off the stories that "no, I bought it this way". Which may or may not be true.
2) just because it is reported to the registrar as being so, we all know some folks are just BSing this.
so - for education purpose:
I thought that the "shock tower washers" were on '65 and '66 GT 350's as the Koni Shocks were somewhat less wide than the standard shocks and thus the washers... AND the longer bolts to hold the shocks were added as well.. is this correct?
The '67's having standard shocks would need neither... or were they "supposed" to have washers on the tower caps without the longer bolts?
BTW - my '67 has neither the washers or the longer bolts...
Dave
Quote from: DRGT350 on June 16, 2020, 10:59:20 AM
so - for education purpose:
I thought that the "shock tower washers" were on '65 and '66 GT 350's as the Koni Shocks were somewhat less wide than the standard shocks and thus the washers... AND the longer bolts to hold the shocks were added as well.. is this correct?
The '67's having standard shocks would need neither... or were they "supposed" to have washers on the tower caps without the longer bolts?
BTW - my '67 has neither the washers or the longer bolts...
Dave
The reinforced upper brackets were not Shelby unique. It was part of something called a export package. The heavy duty items in the package were first designed for rougher roads encountered in Europe and other places hence export package stuck. Heavy duty adjustable shocks and a one piece stronger firewall brace were also part of the package . The Koni shocks evolved to another heavy duty adjustable shock mfg starting in early 1966. That new shock was one that Ford had control of the design and most likely cost too. The different bolts for the Koni's was in response to a smaller surface area on the Koni shock mounting cross bar. The special bolts had a larger head to bridge the smaller surface area of the cross bar mounting. Different bolts were not needed when used with the different mfg shocks that Ford had contracted to be built to their specifications by Gabriel . The relative thin metal of the upper shock bracket was prone to fatigue and cracking under harsh conditions unless reinforced . The one piece upper firewall brace commonly refereed to as a export brace was made of thick steel compared to the the two separate sheet metal formed stock firewall braces on regular Mustangs.The one piece thick steel brace did not allow as much flex in the front end on rough roads as the stock braces. All of these export package components had value in road racing handling as well which is why they were chosen as part of the specified design of 65-70 Shelby's
In case it was not clear from my explanation ,the washers and the bolts are unrelated. Most 66 production and up Shelby's used the made to Ford specifications heavy duty adjustable shock designed for harsh road conditions. It was not considered a standard Mustang shock.
Bob - thanks for the information and explanation -
Dave
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 16, 2020, 11:58:51 AM
Quote from: DRGT350 on June 16, 2020, 10:59:20 AM
so - for education purpose:
I thought that the "shock tower washers" were on '65 and '66 GT 350's as the Koni Shocks were somewhat less wide than the standard shocks and thus the washers... AND the longer bolts to hold the shocks were added as well.. is this correct?
The '67's having standard shocks would need neither... or were they "supposed" to have washers on the tower caps without the longer bolts?
BTW - my '67 has neither the washers or the longer bolts...
Dave
The reinforced upper brackets were not Shelby unique. It was part of something called a export package. The heavy duty items in the package were first designed for rougher roads encountered in Europe and other places hence export package stuck. Heavy duty adjustable shocks and a one piece stronger firewall brace were also part of the package . The Koni shocks evolved to another heavy duty adjustable shock mfg starting in early 1966. That new shock was one that Ford had control of the design and most likely cost too. The different bolts for the Koni's was in response to a smaller surface area on the Koni shock mounting cross bar. The special bolts had a larger head to bridge the smaller surface area of the cross bar mounting. Different bolts were not needed when used with the different mfg shocks that Ford had contracted to be built to their specifications by Gabriel . The relative thin metal of the upper shock bracket was prone to fatigue and cracking under harsh conditions unless reinforced . The one piece upper firewall brace commonly refereed to as a export brace was made of thick steel compared to the the two separate sheet metal formed stock firewall braces on regular Mustangs.The one piece thick steel brace did not allow as much flex in the front end on rough roads as the stock braces. All of these export package components had value in road racing handling as well which is why they were chosen as part of the specified design of 65-70 Shelby's
I thought I would add before someone mentions it is that although the heavy duty shock and reinforced upper shock bracket were used the 69/70 did not incorporate the one piece firewall brace in the Shelby specified design.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 10:49:05 PM
If it was a cool or interesting mistake I could see keeping the inferior part. The use of the regular upper shock bracket makes a 67 Shelby less then another 67 Shelby that has the correct stronger part like the car was designed to have IMO.
Bob, My guess is that I just flat overlooked it. I was only about 28 when I started the process. I don't remember them on the car. Back then the references just weren't out there. There are SO many early books that are the cause of the rumors and false information.
I guess at some juncture I'll correct the issue.
Quote from: The Going Thing on June 16, 2020, 10:45:06 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on June 15, 2020, 10:49:05 PM
If it was a cool or interesting mistake I could see keeping the inferior part. The use of the regular upper shock bracket makes a 67 Shelby less then another 67 Shelby that has the correct stronger part like the car was designed to have IMO.
Bob, My guess is that I just flat overlooked it. I was only about 28 when I started the process. I don't remember them on the car. Back then the references just weren't out there. There are SO many early books that are the cause of the rumors and false information.
I guess at some juncture I'll correct the issue.
They are easy to make . Someone else asked about what is required. I will get measurements for the washers later this week and post. AMK sells the washers. They are tack welded typically in 3 spots. two on each side and one in the back (back is opposite of were the shock shaft comes up through).
Hello Bob,
Do you have that AMK part number for the washers that are correct? Trying to get my AMK order together and I could sure use these!
Many thanks!!
Matt
Quote from: 67GT500#1594 on July 03, 2020, 08:16:15 PM
Hello Bob,
Do you have that AMK part number for the washers that are correct? Trying to get my AMK order together and I could sure use these!
Many thanks!!
Matt
Here are the measurements.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on July 04, 2020, 09:19:34 PM
Quote from: 67GT500#1594 on July 03, 2020, 08:16:15 PM
Hello Bob,
Do you have that AMK part number for the washers that are correct? Trying to get my AMK order together and I could sure use these!
Many thanks!!
Matt
Here are the measurements.
If you have access to engine head parts, FE 390/428 rocker arm shaft stand retaining bolt washers would be correct, or very close. I have made proper looking tower shock caps using these washers.
Thanks guys! Perfect!! I actually have a ton of those washers and I never knew! Thanks for the pics too! Those always are appreciated! 👍👍👍
Don't forget they are cut in a D shape.
Quote from: The Going Thing on July 06, 2020, 01:32:27 AM
Don't forget they are cut in a D shape.
You can cut them before with a cut off saw or after they are tac welded on then use the edge as a guide and cut them off.
Do the clipped washers as on the power steering frame bracket work?
Jon
Quote from: 1175 on July 06, 2020, 02:13:38 PM
Do the clipped washers as on the power steering frame bracket work?
Jon
Jon,too large of a diameter and slightly thicker.
Mig weld , high heat , sloppy because you were in a hurry and didn't care.
'65 and '66 one "tack" on each outside. The FE rocker stand washer is what was used, I have it on good authority.